Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

Trackback message
Title: Saturday Smorgasbord
Excerpt: 1. Religious Wars. There are some smart folks in the Blogosphere, but intelligence is no substitute for either perspective or judgment, and no one is uniformly knowledgeable about all things. Nope, not even your Curmudgeon. Hearken to Eric Raymond, a g...
Blog name: Eternity Road

I can't imagine mr Porretto being too upset with anyone for long, he's far too peaceful a person. He does have an understanding of the levitical covenant, and the new covenant that Christ brought to believers, that few have. You would do well to understand those things before trying to debate them with Francis.

As I pointed out here, the core document of Christianity is the new testament, which consists of the four gospels (most importantly) and the letters and acts, and apocrypha.(far less importantly) All one need do is to pay careful attention to the actual words of Christ, and see that Christ himself at no point intended his followers to coerce, enslave, or murder one another, or anyone else, for that matter. THe Torah (or the books of the Pentateuch, as they're known to Christians) are the documents of Judaism, and because Christ was a Jew, we are assisted in our understanding of Christ's life by understanding them. Sorry for the long reply, come to Neanderpundit if you would like further discussion.

Protestants have killed for religious reasons too, and not just nutcases like Jim Jones, but also the founders of mainstream churches. One of the founders of Unitarianism fled from the Inquisition in France to Geneva - where Calvin ordered him hung. (Better than being burned at the stake on top of a pile of his books, but still...) Even in American history, the Puritans in New England persecuted other Protestant religions, hung several Quakers for persistent and annoying public proselytizing, and let's not forget that period of mass insanity in Salem.

Sarah's sort of Protestantism doesn't bother me at all, but millions of others have studied the same book just as hard and come to quite different conclusions.

With respect to O.T. vs. N.T. (disclaimer: I am not a biblical scholar) my understanding is that wherever the two testaments come into conflict, the N.T. takes precedence. This does not invalidate everything in the O.T. God laid out some new rules in the new covenant, but some of the old ones are still valid.

This whole argument is, once again, boiling down to: nobody's perfect. Is that the best indictment anyone has of Christianity? As Fran said, no creed is proof against perversion or corruption. The fact that someone has done something bad in the name of a belief or because of a belief is not necessarily testament against that belief. You make your judgement by weighing the aggregate good vs. bad. Does that belief inspire a net amount of good? Does it inspire any good, for that matter? While Christianity is certainly not impervious to corruption and evil, in the race of what has accomplished the most good in the world it wins hands. As D'Souza says, nobody else has even crossed the finish line.

The argument I'm hearing against Christianity is essentially the same one I had with a liberal friend last night. He claims that because the United States is so good and powerful the world is justified in holding the U.S. alone of all nations to the standard of perfection. I think most of you would call bullsh-t on that argument, yet you apply it quite happily when it comes to arguing systems of belief -- holding Christians to the standard of perfection, and neglecting the bad done by people who believe in no god at all. Why is it that the killing done by atheists is never held up as testament against that belief? Jeffrey Dahmer claimed that he did what he did because he believed there was no God, and therefore no right and wrong. Marx claimed he wanted to "dethrone God" and ended up inspiring the slaughter of tens of millions. Does that give any of you atheists pause to reconsider your beliefs and make you rush headlong to the nearest church or synagogue?

no religious type is going to admit that there can be a better god than his own.

Of course not. Think about what you are suggesting: that people who realize, but won't admit, that there's a better god than their own are inspired to devote their entire lives and even die in the name of that god only out of what? stubbornness and pride? It doesn't compute.

Apparently, the misdeeds of so-called Christians are supposed to call into question the validity of Christianity. The point of my question was, does this apply to all systems of belief or just those involving God? If the misdeeds of a Dahmer or a Marxist don't inspire you to reconsider your atheistic beliefs, then why should the misdeeds of an evil Pope be thrown in the face of Christians time and again?

If the misdeeds of a Dahmer or a Marxist don't inspire you to reconsider your atheistic beliefs, then why should the misdeeds of an evil Pope be thrown in the face of Christians time and again?

It's a good question. But, I don't consider the deeds and misdeeds of people who have beliefs either way about religion to either justify or not justify their having those beliefs. Further, I don't consider them to be relevant to the believability or merit of those beliefs.

I find it amusing that many folks I talk with are basically saying that Jesus didn't approve of all of that violent an judgmental un-Christian behavior that God had earlier forced his followers to engage in. The same behavior that God also unleashed Himself upon the wicked that displeased Him.

Christ may be the beacon of love and forgiveness in the New Testament, but God the Father is the epitome of vengeance and destruction once He gets past the first seven days of creation.

I actually prefer the Old Testament, as the violent and merciless nature of God makes for a pretty entertaining read (though not fun for many of the folks who are in it).

"But we have to discuss that subject, because no one's proven to me that such things can't happen again:"

Okay, Kevin. A man in my town shot a dog. You're a man. No one's proven to me you won't shoot my dog.

Of course you won't, and I read your blog enough to know that you are the diametrical opposite of the type that would do that. There's a slim possibility that you might suddenly go utterly insane and shoot my dog, but if you did, it wouod be because you are no longer the person you "normally" are. Let me assure you that at no time, ever, has any Christian murdered anyone. Started an inquisition. Done anything but tried to be decent to his fellow human. Just as it is at odds with your nature to go around shooting dogs, it is at odds with the nature of Christianity to act in that manner.

Will someone claiming to be a Christian engage in some act of unreasoning ignorance in the future? You betcha. In fact, I can pretty much tell you, it's happening right now.Will that person be a Christian? No. No matter how hard they claim to be a Christian, they will be demonstrating by their actions that they are not. Will there be hundreds of thousands of folks out there like myself, and Mr porretto, and YOURSELF, to say, "that is unchristian behavior. You do NOT represent the vision of Christ."

It was six days of creation, not seven. And a lot of that vengeance and destruction stuff of the O.T. had to do with the fact that people were acculturating away from very primitive, pagan ways. It was a nasty process.

DJ,

In general, I justify believing something if there is evidence to support that belief and the belief is not contradicted by what we know of reality.

Well, that wasn't quite what I was driving at. I presume you have a set of rules you live by -- a code, a creed, whatever -- and that this has a basis in your belief about the nature of existence. How would you justify your belief in that creed? What I mean is, unless you think that your sole function in life is to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide, you must think that there is a purpose to your existence. What is that purpose, and what is the evidence that your creed furthers that?

Probably it will just piss a lot more people off, though. That's what these discussions seem to do.

For my part, I enjoy these discussions. The only thing I have ever noticed pissing people off is when accusations are levelled at Christianity that aren't supported by scripture (or history). As bizarre as the notion may seem, a few minutes with an actual Bible might prevent some of these misunderstandings. :) For those of you who don't possess one, biblegateway.com has several different translations online. Also, rationalchristianity.net is a good tier-1 resource for dealing with the most common objections to Christianity and the Bible. You might find that some of your questions have already been addressed there.

I presume you have a set of rules you live by -- a code, a creed, whatever -- and that this has a basis in your belief about the nature of existence. How would you justify your belief in that creed? What I mean is, unless you think that your sole function in life is to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide, you must think that there is a purpose to your existence. What is that purpose, and what is the evidence that your creed furthers that?

I do indeed have a creed. To state it as simply as possible, I try to do what is right, simply because it is right.

Reality is what it is regardless of what I think about it, and regardless of whether or not I like it. So, neither my like nor my dislike of any aspect of reality form any part of my reasoning about what reality is. Instead, my convictions are proportional to my evidence.

There is no purpose to my existence. I simply exist. I am a self-aware organic mechanism that functions, with part of that functioning being to think and to reason. My doing what is right furthers that existence, and does so better and more successfully than doing otherwise. I am quite content with my existence.

Virtually everyone thinks that he's doing what's right. "Right" isn't self-defining, otherwise there'd be no such thing as conflict in the world. My question is, what exactly do you think constitutes "right," what aspect of existence is this based on (e.g. religion belief or law of nature), and how do you think the evidence of reality supports that your creed furthers this?

I ask this, because I suspect that most people haven't really thought this through or defined it for themselves.

There is no purpose to my existence. I simply exist. I am a self-aware organic mechanism that functions, with part of that functioning being to think and to reason. My doing what is right furthers that existence, and does so better and more successfully than doing otherwise.

Doing wrong (whatever you think that is) also furthers existence. It's why people do it. But if you think there is no purpose to your existence, then why do you care, or how do you even define, what a "successful" existence is? Just "being"? Can you prove to me that becoming, e.g. a violent, tyrannical thug necessarily makes your existence any less successful? If all you want to do is further (purposeless) existence as an organic mechanism that does stuff, this doesn't necessitate any particular creed at all.

"If the misdeeds of a Dahmer or a Marxist don't inspire you to reconsider your atheistic beliefs, then why should the misdeeds of an evil Pope be thrown in the face of Christians time and again?"

I am not just an atheist, I am a rationalist - I interpret the world by applying reason (including mathematics) to what I can see and feel, and God isn't there. Most of all, I avoid magical thinking. The terrible real-world results of Marxism are not due to their atheism, but due to all the magical thinking Marxists indulge in - that people will work hard even when they don't personally profit from it, that a government agency can efficiently allocate resources, that the state will "wither away" even at the same time that it's taken on a huge role of central planning and distribution.

A magically-thinking Christian is better than a magically-thinking Marxist, because typically Christians respect tradition, and their worst traditions (e.g., witch trials and the Inquisition) have fallen by the wayside over the years, while Marxists threw out all tradition. But how much of a guarantee is that against some religious idealist who prefers the traditions of 1200 AD to those of the present?

As for "evil popes", for more than half the time that Christianity has existed, the pope determined what was "Christian" and what wasn't for everyplace west of Bulgaria. If you want to claim that they were all misreading the Bible, you've got to admit that it must be pretty easy to misread the Bible. Roman Catholicism is better than the other main branch of medieval Christianity, the Greek Orthodox church. Until Constantinople (AKA Byzantium or Instabul) fell to the Turks, it was a theocracy, with the Emperor also being the head of the church, just like the Muslim Caliphate in Bagdad. If the Popes made mistakes reading the Bible, the Byzantine Emperors must have made even more mistakes.

I find it amusing that many folks I talk with are basically saying that Jesus didn't approve of all of that violent an judgmental un-Christian behavior that God had earlier forced his followers to engage in. The same behavior that God also unleashed Himself upon the wicked that displeased Him.

Recall: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." By that rule, God can cast as many as he requires. Furthermore, neither God nor Jesus are pacifists. "Turn the other cheek" is not the same as "if the bad guy stabs you with a knife, let him stab you again." The slap in the first part is an insult not an attack. You may seek human justice and you may defend yourself, you ought not to blindly seek vengance to right perceived greivances.

Why do you think that believing in a supernatural force is "magical thinking"? As a physicist, I know that the best evidence at hand strongly suggests a beginning point for everything material in the universe. The big bang produced ex nihilo what we refer to as physical nature -- matter, time, and space. A temporal entity cannot be its own cause, therefore there must be some force outside of nature -- which, by definition, is necessarily supernatural -- that caused it. That's not magical thinking, that's the inevitable conclusion from the data. Unless, of course, you want to challenge all of modern physics.

...the pope determined what was "Christian" and what wasn't for everyplace west of Bulgaria. If you want to claim that they were all misreading the Bible, you've got to admit that it must be pretty easy to misread the Bible.

There is some latitude in interpretation, but not as much as you are suggesting. What I will admit is that power corrupts. How do you know that an evil pope didn't just abandon Christ's teachings entirely for his own gain? Not many Christians would even know, because, at that time common people did not read scripture for themselves. That was left to the anointed few. It wasn't until the time of Martin Luther that scripture was translated to common languages and people were strongly encouraged to interpret it for themselves.

But even if what you are saying is relevant, then I can infer, given the state of affairs in the Supreme Court in the last 70 years, that the U.S. Constitution is just as easily misread as the Bible, and therefore we should abandon it. It has nothing to do with justices perverting the intent of the Constitution, or just abandoning it altogether, in favor of their own beliefs. Right?

Why do you think that believing in a supernatural force is "magical thinking"? As a physicist, I know that the best evidence at hand strongly suggests a beginning point for everything material in the universe. The big bang produced ex nihilo what we refer to as physical nature -- matter, time, and space. A temporal entity cannot be its own cause, therefore there must be some force outside of nature -- which, by definition, is necessarily supernatural -- that caused it. That's not magical thinking, that's the inevitable conclusion from the data. Unless, of course, you want to challenge all of modern physics.

There's a difference, Sarah, between "before this we can't know what happened" and sacrificing a cow to that unknown for a good crop.

Sarah-
*bzzt*
"A temporal entity cannot be its own cause, therefore there must be some force outside of nature -- which, by definition, is necessarily supernatural -- that caused it."

It's outside of time, but by no means outside of nature. By definition.

Or to more twist your words against you, "physical nature -- matter, time, and space" is a subset of the set, nature, which includes those things not of the set physical nature, but not of the set supernatural.

Magical thinking is that which has repeatedly attempted to challenge physics. And failed. It's the intentional blinding of ones sight of the observable, in hopes that ones beleifs are correct. This is not a precipt that is religous bound, but is nigh a requirement for religeon. it's wishing the bad men would stop, and expecting that wish to be enough.

Sure, Kevin, but what in the world does sacrificing cows for crops have to do with Christianity? Or any Abrahamic belief system, for that matter?

If the big bang is fact, then the supernatural force is fact. Most people I know are curious about existence -- the why and the how, etc. To not be curious about it strikes me as living on a rather amoebic level, and if that's the case with anyone here I'll admit that there's no point in discussing this further with you. For everyone else, once a person has accepted what physics tells us about the nature of the universe, determining the nature of that first cause, as a corollary to determining the why and the how of existence, becomes quite important. The rational thing to do is to look for clues, and the Bible is an excellent place to start. I still don't get what's so "magical" about that.

It's outside of time, but by no means outside of nature. By definition.

Wrong. It's outside of time, outside of space, outside of everything that was created in the first moment of the big bang. Whatever caused the big bang created nature. Nothing in nature is its own cause. Therefore, whatever caused the big bang is outside of nature, above nature -- i.e. SUPERnatural.

"A temporal entity cannot be its own cause, therefore there must be some force outside of nature -- which, by definition, is necessarily supernatural -- that caused it."

1. The originating "force" isn't necessarily "outside of nature", but just outside of the part of nature we can observe. That makes it beyond the reach of science, which isn't the same as supernatural.

2. Assuming that this force is the God of Abraham and Jesus is magical thinking.

This is sorta funny. It's as if nobody here has read Flatland, and that everyone's minds are shut tight to ideas of anything they cannot perceive. What's so scary about the notion that existence is more than it appears?

I'm not stating that it must be the God of Abraham and Jesus. But I think it's the best bet. There are clues in the Bible. For instance, if you compare what Genesis says about the six days of creation to what modern science tells us, the agreement is very good. Rather too good for someone to have known thousands of years ago. It's almost as if (gasp) the author had divine inspiration.

One more thing occurred to me. markm claims that the creative force of nature could exist in some part of nature that is unobservable, which "makes it beyond the reach of science, which isn't the same as supernatural." Leave out the fact that this makes no logical sense, this is about as close as you can get to "magical thinking" in this conversation. Judeo-Christian thinking holds that the universe operates by a knowable and unchanging set of rules that were created at the moment of creation -- all of these rules are ultimately knowable given enough time to develop the appropriate understanding and technology. To assert that there are parts of nature that we can never understand through science is to invoke some magical, mystical property to existence, which I, as a Christian and a physicist, reject utterly.

P.S. Good call with Flatland, Ben. Talk about shifting one's paradigm. Also, The Elegant Universe, which you can watch for free on the NOVA website, talks about the possibility of 11 dimensions to space-time. We, as humans, only perceive four dimensions. Existence just gets more interesting all the time!

"therefore there must be some force outside of nature"
No. Not proven, nor does it logically follow.

Now, I have to question your claim of being a physicist. As a physicist you should be, at the very very least, rudimentary aware of that evil thing called quantum physics.

At the level of quantum physics, things can happen spontaneously. For no reason. Particles will pop into existence without warning, or disappear, again, without warning. Particles may change location, or direction of motion, without any cause for the effect. (I recommend a google search on spontaneous particle appearance in complete vacuum for more information)

I'd have to say that that would be a case of nothing causing something. Which is really all you need, to extrapolate up to nothing causing the big bang, but hey, why take my word on it. Go read Stephen Hawking's books. Say some of his works with James Hartle, for instance. Like thier idea about time emerging from space, specifically time having once been just another dimesion of space.

Scientists, real ones that is, can and have shown that spontaneous creation can happen without cause, especially supernatural cause. They have done so repeatedly, through various provable and verifiable ways.

You bring up an interesting point, but these are virtual particles that "pop" into existence. They are not a violation of the rule that nothing can be its own cause, because their appearance is due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- they live for an extremely short time and borrow energy that already exists. They annihilate very quickly, and "pay back" the energy they borrowed. Also, they don't pop into existence in a complete vacuum -- there is, in fact, no such thing as a complete vacuum. The Cosmological Constant, or Dark Energy, is the "vacuum energy" that pervades the entire universe, and comprises about 70% of the density budget of the universe. Matter and energy are different facets of the same thing -- if a particle manifests temporarily from fluctuations in the vacuum energy, that is in perfect accord with the idea that nothing can be its own cause, because that energy has been around since the moment of the big bang. (These are my own words, by the way, based on actual understanding and not cribbed from a website.)

As for the rest of your questions, I don't mean to be flip, but they cover stuff that should be obvious to anyone with a background in logic and I don't have the patience to tutor you through it.

I'd have to say that that would be a case of nothing causing something. Which is really all you need, to extrapolate up to nothing causing the big bang, but hey, why take my word on it.Oh brother. I'm holding out for nothing to cause a turkey sandwich in my right... er, make it my left hand.

"Probably it will just piss a lot more people off, though. That's what these discussions seem to do."

People get pissed off. Shit happens.

Bottomline, though, is the difference between someone with a grasp of reason and logic, and someone who erects a fact proof screen to prevent the penetration of anything that runs counter to their pet theory. Have a grasp of logic. Be able to accept that your pet theory might need alteration. If you piss people off then, it will be because they are incapable of learning.

Sarah, you asked a number of questions of me this morning. Rather than attempting to answer them individually, I'm going to lump them together and paraphrase them as follows:

I don't get it. I really don't get it. Please explain it, in detail.

OK, I'll try. Please bear with me as I ramble.

The core of my creed is that I believe people have rights, that I should respect the rights of others, and that others should respect my rights. Kevin's essays on rights in this blog were masterpieces that I cannot improve on, so I won't try. You participated in the comments thereto, so I need not point you to them.

And so, I try hard to be a decent guy. I try hard to live my life as I would have others live theirs. I respect the rights of others and I try very hard to deserve the respect and good will that I get from others. I live my live such that I do not harm others nor do I live at the expense of others. I have no enemies that I am aware of.

As I stated, my doing what is right furthers my existence, and does so better and more successfully than doing otherwise. My behavior is obviously better for all whom I interact with than it would be if I acted as a "violent, tyrannical thug". It is also better for me because it is much more peaceful, is much more pleasant, and is much more likely to result in my having a long, prosperous, healthy, and happy life. It's worked nicely for 53 years so far.

The core of my approach to my continued existence stems from a simple observation. I stated it earlier, but I'll expand on it here.

Reality is what it is regardless of what I think about it, and indeed regardless of whether I think about it or not. Reality does not conform to my likes or dislikes about it, rather I conform my thinking to what I observe about reality.

A short story is in order here. Several weeks ago, I was channel surfing and happened to observe and hear a short statement by someone who claimed to strongly believe in heaven and hell. I mean the heaven and hell as described by a fire-and-brimstone Baptist preacher. Dante would have been right at home. He said the reason he did so was because he could not tolerate the notion that Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa shared the same fate.

Rolling on the floor, laughing my arse off, is a fair description of my response. I am laughing again as I write this. This man's "thinking" is more than intellectual dishonesty, it is the pure embodiment of chutzpah. As Lily Tomlin might say, "Well, isn't that special?" Should I believe that this man is so important that reality simply must be such that it doesn't offend his sensitivities? Why does he?

No, reality is what it is regardless of whether or not it offends his, or anyone else's, sensivities. Reality doesn't offend me. Reality simply IS.

I am simply a part of reality. I am just another instance of a self-aware organic mechanism in a long, long line of such mechanisms. But, kindly don't leap to the conclusion that I should therefore not care in what manner I conduct my existence. I care very deeply about it. I have only one chance at existence and I try very hard to not do it wrong.

Where you and I differ in caring about existence it is that I have no need for deities. We are having this discussion because deities are beyond the boundaries of evidence and science. Their existence is neither proved nor disproved by evidence, and science stands mute on the issue.

And yet, people claim to know not only that "God" exists, they even claim to know it to an astonishingly abundant and excruciating degree of detail. I am always thoroughly amused by the simple question of Mark Twain, "Well, now, who found that out?"

I don't share such beliefs and never have. I contend that pretending to be certain about propositions for which no evidence is conceivable is intellectual dishonesty when directed toward others and mere self-abuse when directed inward.

In particular, I believe the god of the Bible is no more than a man-made myth which has evolved over thousands of years as the shamans kept the rabble in line. Their goals were wealth and power, and domination by the carrot and stick was their method. It has been astoundingly successful, and it still is.

Now, with that context in mind, consider the notion of explaining and justifying a creed from a religious viewpoint. Lessee now ... First, I invent the notion of a deity. Next, I think up a laundry list of attributes and ascribe them to this deity. Continuing, I dream up a code of behavior that describes how people are supposed to behave. I even describe the fates of those who follow this code and the fates of those who don't. I declare that the deity has "blessed" this code and therefore everyone should follow it, and their fates will be as I described. Finally, I propagate the whole shebang among the great unwashed.

Now, why would people follow this code? Because I say, "The deity says so?" Some will for that reason -- many sheep will blindly and mindlessly follow another's lead. Because they fear the consequences of not doing so? Some will for that reason -- I live in the Baptist Bible belt, and I've seen it happen first hand. Because they want the fate they are promised if they do? Some will for that reason -- we see it daily in the Middle East, no matter how awful the prescribed behavior. Because the code has merit of its own? Some will for that reason -- and why postulate a made-up deity and associated claptrap if that is the case?

A code of behavior, a "creed" if you will, ought to survive on merit. I believe mine does. I have lived it my whole life by that creed as best I can. I have no need of deities.

There is a bit of carrot and stick involved. In my case, it is a life with purpose and morals that are not arbitrary.

I am simply a part of reality. I am just another instance of a self-aware organic mechanism in a long, long line of such mechanisms.

As an organic mechanism, nothing you do has any merit or worth. Nothing you do is your choice, you are nothing more than a deterministic system, same as the rest of us. We had no choice but to follow our paths, so you really ought not to judge us. Nor anyone. Nor anything. Because in the billions or trillions or gobzillions of years that existence has existed, your thoughts are insignificant and you couldn't help thinking them anyway. Anything you did or will do is a result of the laws of the universe and its initial conditions, if there was such a thing as "the beginning." And when you die, it will be as if you never were. Anything you did will only serve as initial conditions for the state of the system from that point forward.

But, kindly don't leap to the conclusion that I should therefore not care in what manner I conduct my existence. I care very deeply about it. I have only one chance at existence and I try very hard to not do it wrong.

Why should you care? Apparently you do care, but since you are deterministic, you cannot help it. Whoop tee doo! It is funny that the purposeless universe made such a mechanism that fumbles through life "trying" to do it "right." You have no more choice in your actions than a forelorn seaturtle struggling to finish its nest before the predators come and destroy it. Like a cave man rummaging through his bone pile for a leftover bit of mamoth meat, while the universe carries on without him, and he without it. Did it never occur to you that we as organic mechanisms are utterly infantile, unaware and naive? The heroic ideal of Ayn Rand is laughably idiotic in the face of existence itself. It's artificial and phony.

You may be right. I may be mistaken. I hope not, and that's all I really have is hope. You have none. If that's fine with you then OK.

A code of behavior, a "creed" if you will, ought to survive on merit. I believe mine does. I have lived it my whole life by that creed as best I can. I have no need of deities.

Your creed survives no better than mine on merit. Who's going to give you a blue ribbon for your creed?

I have only one chance at existence and I try very hard to not do it wrong.

Why? What does it matter if you do it wrong if, ultimately, there are no consequences? And how do you know that you only have one chance at existence? I'll go one better on what Ben said with the deterministic stuff and repeat a discussion that Kevin and I once had. Nature operates according to probabilities. That you exist purely in a material sense (no God or afterlife, remember) means that your existence has a definite non-zero probability, which means that given enough time you could very well exist again. Furthermore, the probability of you existing twice at once is non-zero, which means you aren't even unique.

Their existence is neither proved nor disproved by evidence, and science stands mute on the issue.

No, it doesn't stand mute on the issue. If anything, science points toward design. Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator is an excellent book on the subject.

First, I invent the notion of a deity. Next, I think up a laundry list of attributes and ascribe them to this deity. Continuing, I dream up a code of behavior that describes how people are supposed to behave. I even describe the fates of those who follow this code and the fates of those who don't. I declare that the deity has "blessed" this code and therefore everyone should follow it, and their fates will be as I described. Finally, I propagate the whole shebang among the great unwashed.

How is this any different than what you've done on a personal level? All you've done is skipped the deity step and gone straight to "dream up a code of behavior that describes how people are supposed to behave." Your code certainly isn't based on anything concrete, just that you observe that it's comfortable to you and makes (some) other people happy -- a condition that is not necessitated by any law of nature.

Now, why would people follow this code? Because I say, "The deity says so?"

So, why should anyone follow your code? Because you say so?

Because the code has merit of its own? Some will for that reason...

Nothing has merit on its own. The word merit implies some basis for judgement. In the human sphere, there is no absolute basis for judgement. Not in a physical sense, not in an emotional sense, not in a philosophical sense. DJ, as nice as you sound, your entire code amounts to nothing more than personal opinion unless it is firmly grounded in an absolute. Since you do not believe in God, you must therefore base your beliefs on what you know to exist -- the rules of nature. The #1 rule of nature is, survival of the fittest (right up until you die, that is). Can you derive your creed from that?

...why postulate a made-up deity and associated claptrap if that is the case?

Well, that associated claptrap is the foundation of the Western world, and whether you realize it or not has a lot to do with how you arrived at your beliefs and values. As much as you would like to think that you arrived at them independently, you did not. You grew up immersed in the Christian culture -- the United States is a nation whose traditions and institutions are deeply rooted in the Christian faith. It is highly unlikely that, had you grown up in tribal Africa or communist China, you would have arrived at the same creed.

Man I'm glad I paid for the Haloscan upgrade. The character limit for the free version would have puked on those last three comments.

I wondered if there was a limit. Thanks for thinking of us.

Ben:

As an organic mechanism, nothing you do has any merit or worth. Nothing you do is your choice, you are nothing more than a deterministic system, same as the rest of us.

No, I have free will, same as you. I can do however and whatever I decide to do and am physically able to do, same as you. That is true whether I, or you, believe in a deity or not. Believing in a deity or not is a choice made of free will. Choosing one way instead of the the other does not eliminate the free will that made the choice possible.

Why should you care?

Why shouldn't I care?

Did it never occur to you that we as organic mechanisms are utterly infantile, unaware and naive?

No, it never did. I am aware that I am self-aware.

You may be right. I may be mistaken. I hope not, and that's all I really have is hope. You have none.

So, you've jumped to the conclusion that I have no hope? Did you ever ask me if I had any hope? I hope for a long, pleasant, happy life, one in which I left the world a better place than it was when I was born. I'm trying to make that happen.

Your creed survives no better than mine on merit.

Yup. That's right. That is precisely the point I tried to make. If a creed survives on merit, the invocation of deities is not a necessary part of that merit.

Who's going to give you a blue ribbon for your creed?

No one is. I don't expect one or need one. That's the nice thing about merit. I ain't in it for a prize at the end.

You seem a bit hostile, Ben. Did I strike a raw nerve? It wasn't intentional.

Sarah:

Why? What does it matter if you do it wrong if, ultimately, there are no consequences?

Again, it's called merit. I don't need the lure of a carrot or the threat of a stick to do what is right. As I said before, I try hard to do what is right, simply because it is right. That's enough reason for me. I think life is better that way.

And how do you know that you only have one chance at existence?

Because I have no reason to believe otherwise. When my brain dies, my conscienceness ceases to exist. Again, one's convictions should be proportional to one's evidence.

If anything, science points toward design.

By "science stands mute on the issue", I should have been more elaborate. Science cannot answer the question, "is there a deity." The question is beyond the realm of science -- it is untestable. Again, that's why we're having this discussion.

How is this any different than what you've done on a personal level? All you've done is skipped the deity step and gone straight to "dream up a code of behavior that describes how people are supposed to behave." Your code certainly isn't based on anything concrete, just that you observe that it's comfortable to you and makes (some) other people happy -- a condition that is not necessitated by any law of nature.

I think you missed my point. Merit, in this context, is "superior quality or worth". If such a code has merit, then declaring that it is the preferred code of a made-up deity is just window-dressing, and such isn't made up of anything concrete, either.

So, why should anyone follow your code? Because you say so?

No, because it has merit.

Nothing has merit on its own. The word merit implies some basis for judgement. In the human sphere, there is no absolute basis for judgement.

And an invented deity is an absolute basis for judgement? Why? Because you say so?

DJ, as nice as you sound, your entire code amounts to nothing more than personal opinion unless it is firmly grounded in an absolute. Since you do not believe in God, you must therefore base your beliefs on what you know to exist -- the rules of nature. The #1 rule of nature is, survival of the fittest (right up until you die, that is). Can you derive your creed from that?

Why must I base my beliefs about proper behavior on the rules of nature? Why is the #1 rule of nature the "survival of the fittest"?

If you examine my creed a bit more closely, you'll see that it is not based on notions of the survival of the fittest. It is based a great deal on treating others well and fairly, which is largely a notion of "survival of everyone". Notions of "survival of the fittest" do not include that concept, do they?

Well, that associated claptrap is the foundation of the Western world, and whether you realize it or not has a lot to do with how you arrived at your beliefs and values.

Yes, it is. I have never said or implied otherwise.

Observe that the creed we see dominating behavior in the Middle East is defended by its practitioners on the grounds of "God says so". Here, the practitioners of the creed of Protestant Christianity defend it on the grounds of "God says so". Obviously, I am unimpressed by the notion that "God says so".

Sarah-
Again, I have to ask, rude as it may be, for you to substantiate your claim to be a physicist, when you ignore the past 20 some years of physics research.

Virtual particle is a misnomer. Virtual pairs (particle isn't correct since a matter/anti-matter particle is created simultaniously) are labeled virtual due to the amount of time they stick around and that they can't be directly measured. Indirectly, however, they can be shown to exist, "to be real," by thier interaction and effect on other particles.

Those are my own words... But let's go the extra mile and include a few other's words (I haven't figured out how to footnote or properly cite on this forum, so I'll cite at the end of each quote):

The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science. New York: Prentice Hall, 24)

Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, Paul. 1994. The Last Three Minutes. New York: BasicBooks, 32)

...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, Richard. 1997. Achilles in the Quantum World. New York: Henry Holt & Co, 19)

Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...

Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?

Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, William J. 1985. Universe. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co, 529-532)

Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, Heinz. 1982. The Cosmic Code. Toronto: Bantam, 247)

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam, 129)

Yep, DJ, I was pretty fired up! It's not you, just the subject matter. I used to believe EXACTLY as you do. No longer. It was not enough. I'm not in it for a reward, I'm in it to do what's right, same as you.

In your view there's no difference between blowing your brains out right now and living a "long happy life." At the point of your death, it's equivilant, your conciousness ceases to exist and that's that.

And an invented deity is an absolute basis for judgement? Why? Because you say so?

I'm not going to do your homework for you. The research and math is out there on most of it. The part that is conjecture is being researched as we can do so.

Apparently you're not going to do it for yourself either.

"The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy."

The uncertainty principle implies things about observations, and not about what is actually happening. Nobody actually knows what's happening, since we cannot "see" beyond the scope of Heisenberg. And since "physics is an experimental science, anything that goes beyond the realm of experiment, i.e. observation, is not physics, such as some of that quasi-poetic bunk up there.

And how about this

Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques."

Now what exactly is "empty space" in the above? Is is empty except for the particle that we can't see except for its detectable trace in the "empty space?" Or is the space actually empty? And what does a detectable trace in "empty space" look like? And in either case, how is it that they affect particles in the "empty space." Poorly written at best. How can you conduct any mathematical analysis starting with such a poorly defined system?

It's lunchtime and although I can't see it, I know I have a turkey sandwich around here somewhere due to it's detectable trace. It will soon fill the empty space in my middle.

I will readily admit that a) I am only a grad student (~16 mos. from Ph.D.) and b) my expertise is in extragalactic astrophysics, definitely not QM. Why that should call into question my credentials as a physicist I fail to understand. But if it makes you feel better, then question away.

Somebody went to the trouble of gathering the above quotes onto a website to make a point, and my suspicion is that you understand very little of what you copied and pasted here. This is too bad, because the ideas are interesting and do form a reasonable (though invalid) basis from which to question the "first cause" idea. However, it is somewhat ridiculous for me to be arguing against the work of Hawking, Weinberg, et al. with a person who doesn't necessarily understand that work. Maybe I should be asking what your credentials are.

Nevertheless, here is my opinion. One argument is apparently that creatio ex nihilo happens all the time vis a vis virtual pair production in a zero-energy universe; this negates the need for a supernatural force as the first cause for the universe, because we literally witness the creation of something from nothing in nature all the time. Right? It is apparently true that if you consider the universe as a whole you get a net energy balance of zero, since observations indicate that the universe is spacially flat. Due to the uncertainty principle, you get fluctuations in the vacuum energy such that for extremely short periods of time you get virtual pairs popping into existence. It may seem that these pop into existence from zero energy, but it's a specious argument. These pairs need to borrow energy in order to appear -- you cannot borrow something that does not exist, no matter how short the timescale. The problem comes from the definition of the zero-energy universe. There is still something to the universe -- the fact that the positive energy of mass is balanced out by the negative energy of gravitation doesn't negate the existence of the positive energy. It does exist. The fluctuations in the vacuum energy, arising from the uncertainty principle, can yield virtual particles where there is a net local positive energy. It is not creation of something from nothing, especially since that something (the virtual pair) annihilates very quickly and "pays back" the energy it borrowed. Here's an analogy. Let's say that there are X trillion dollars throughout the world, and also X trillion dollars worth of debt. In a sense, that leaves you with a balance of zero dollars in the world. But those X trillion dollars still exist. You could go to your local bank and borrow some of those dollars, pay it back after a short time, and the zero balance is still conserved. Likewise, physicists accept that virtual pair production violates no rules of conservation. A genuine creatio ex nihilo from nature would have to constitute a violation of energy conservation, and that has not been observed. In the case of Hawking radiation where virtual pair production near the event horizon of a black hole can cause one of the particles to become real, the balance is still conserved, because the black hole is reduced in mass by an amount equal to the mass of the real particle.

Here are some other objections. Kauffmann's quote implies a real creatio ex nihilo at the moment of the big bang. He says, "Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space." The Planck time being the smallest resolution element of time that can be measured. So pretty much right at the moment of creation, the universe is flooded with particles and antiparticles that resulted from the immense gravitational energy associated with the singularity. How does he account for the creation of the singularity?

Pagels' idea that the universe itself could be a vast quantum fluctuation makes no sense, because these fluctuations rely on the uncertainty principle, which depends on time, and time is a product of the big bang. It makes no sense to invoke a property that didn't exist in order to explain how it came to exist. Leaving this objection aside, this argument would require a sort of superspacetime in which these universal fluctuations were taking place, which is problematic on two counts: it leaves open the question of from where did the superspacetime come; and, even worse, the superspacetime is unobservable and its existence is therefore not falsifiable.

This is my last response to you, Rand. Your attitude stinks, and, like I said before, it's ridiculous for me to be arguing with someone who doesn't necessarily understand the objections he's making to my argument.

I can see this is going to go around and around in circles. You keep saying you do what's "right," but you haven't proven what right is by any absolute standard -- it's just your opinion, and as such has no more merit than anyone else's opinion.

You keep using the word "merit" and define it as superior. Well, superior by what standard? It's like defining "up" and "down" in outer space -- there's no preferred reference frame.

And an invented deity is an absolute basis for judgement?

If you automatically define it as invented then you've set up the question so that it will give you the answer you want.

Why must I base my beliefs about proper behavior on the rules of nature? Why is the #1 rule of nature the "survival of the fittest"?

Without any supernatural aspect to existence, then we have nature and nature alone. You are a part of nature, and subject to its rules. There is no God or anything else supernatural to elevate you above simple nature. Therefore, anything that you hold to be true must be based on the rules of nature. Any biologist will tell you that "survival of the fittest" is the overriding law by which nature operates. It's fact. You cannot remove yourself from the rules of nature, because that would make you supernatural, which you've told me doesn't exist. Can you derive your creed from the #1 rule of nature, or for that matter any other rule of nature?

Observe that the creed we see dominating behavior in the Middle East is defended by its practitioners on the grounds of "God says so". Here, the practitioners of the creed of Protestant Christianity defend it on the grounds of "God says so".

What's your point? Allah apparently says what he says and you get the Middle East. Jehovah says something rather different, and you get the West. You're saying that you see no difference between the two outcomes?

Obviously, I am unimpressed by the notion that "God says so".

Whereas, "This person says so" has worked so well over the millenia?

I think I'm gonna pack it in for this discussion. Too much to do at work, and not enough hours in the day.

Whoa, prove that!Just because it feels like you are choosing doesn't make it so.

If it feels and acts like free will, why should I believe that it's not? Should I live my life as if I believed that I was unable to make a choice between alternatives? I've heard such nonsense for decades, and I'll continue to treat it as nonsense.

I used to believe EXACTLY as you do. No longer. It was not enough.

And did you not exercise free will by making that choice?

In your view there's no difference between blowing your brains out right now and living a "long happy life." At the point of your death, it's equivilant, your conciousness ceases to exist and that's that.

Prior to my death, there is an extreme difference between blowing my brains out right now and living a long, happy life. To illustrate the concept, compare a long life filled with physical pleasure to a long life filled with wracking pain. I would not call them equivalent, would you?

It's rather silly to say that, after my death, the results are equivalent from my point of view, as I will no longer have a point of view. My point of view exists only while I am alive, so I would never live my life as if I believed that it didn't matter when or how it ended.

Of course, an invented diety is a useless basis for anything.

Of course. That's exactly what I've been writing.

My opinion is that ALL deities are invented. Why? Because there is not a scintilla of evidence that any exist, because their existence is not testable, and because their characteristics are not discoverable. What can they possibly be other than invented by the minds of people?

Mark Twain's question is enormously enlightening. "Well, now, who found that out?" Who indeed? Nobody found it out. They just made it up.

Now consider the two opposing views you've expressed in these comments.

On the one hand, you would have me believe that, despite making thousands of decisions routinely every day as I go about the process of living, I am really an automaton, and all the evidence of my senses that my conscious mind is in control of my activities and thoughts is just not believable.

On the other hand, you would have me believe (with apologies to the memory of Robert Heinlein) that the Lord God in Heaven, the creator and ruler of the Universe, requires the saccharin adoration of his minions, can be swayed by their supplications, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery, despite the utter lack of any evidence to support it, and despite the utter lack of credibility the notion has.

Nope. I can't do it. One's convictions should be proportional to one's evidence.

You keep saying you do what's "right," but you haven't proven what right is by any absolute standard -- it's just your opinion, and as such has no more merit than anyone else's opinion.

I have not attempted to prove that what I believe is good and proper behavior is so because of any comparison to any absolute standard. Frankly, I don't believe such is possible. The standards as set forth per the tenets of a religion are just someone else's opinion, and I see no reason why I should exalt someone else's opinion over my own.

If you automatically define [an invented deity] as invented then you've set up the question so that it will give you the answer you want.

You might refer to my comments above as addressed to Ben.

Without any supernatural aspect to existence, then we have nature and nature alone. You are a part of nature, and subject to its rules. There is no God or anything else supernatural to elevate you above simple nature. Therefore, anything that you hold to be true must be based on the rules of nature.

No, I can hold things to be true that are based on observable evidence, and I can deny things to be true that are not supported by any evidence.

Any biologist will tell you that "survival of the fittest" is the overriding law by which nature operates. It's fact. You cannot remove yourself from the rules of nature, because that would make you supernatural, which you've told me doesn't exist. Can you derive your creed from the #1 rule of nature, or for that matter any other rule of nature?

My creed is a code to live by, it is not a rule of nature. I did not derive it from a rule of nature, I generated it by a process of reason. It does not come from a pattern in the tea leaves, it comes from a rational thought process.

Why does that trouble you?

What's your point? Allah apparently says what he says and you get the Middle East. Jehovah says something rather different, and you get the West. You're saying that you see no difference between the two outcomes?

Unless I am mistaken, Allah, Jehovah, and the Christian God are different names for the same deity, namely the Old Testament God of Abraham. Of course I see differences in the outcomes. I am trying to get you to realize that saying "God says so", no matter who says it, and no matter which "God" is referred to, does not justify any outcome.

I think I'm gonna pack it in for this discussion. Too much to do at work, and not enough hours in the day.

OK.

I invite you to consider something in your spare time. You needn't respond if you don't want to and I won't be waiting for it. I offer it up as food for thought.

I suspect, given your apparent age and religious beliefs, that you were brought up in a household in which religion played a significant and serious role. From an early age, you attended church services and Sunday school. Likely you've read much, if not all, of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. The details are not import here.

There came a point where you made a decision. You had a choice between two alternatives, and you chose one or the other. You could have chosen to simply accept, without any analysis, that what your were taught was indeed "the truth", and accepted the creed that came with it, or you could have chosen to think the whole thing through for yourself and decide whether or not what you were taught was right, and whether or not the creed that came with it was a good and proper way to behave.

Now if you chose the former, then you simply substituted someone else's opinions and judgement for your own. There is no reason to assert that such beliefs are "right" or that such a creed is according to some absolute standard -- it is simply intellectual abdication. It is the behavior of a mental sheep, as it were.

But, if you chose the latter, then you substituted your own opinions and judgement for someone else's as a result of a rational thought process. That is the behavior of a rational mind, not a sheep. You would have me believe that it was wrong when I did just that, the difference between us being the result, not the principle or the process.

If it feels and acts like free will, why should I believe that it's not? Should I live my life as if I believed that I was unable to make a choice between alternatives? I've heard such nonsense for decades, and I'll continue to treat it as nonsense.

It doesn't matter if you think it is or not, it either is or it is not. If it is not free will, then it doesn't matter either, since that you thought it was free will wasn't your choice!

And did you not exercise free will by making that choice?

Certainly, and so did you, I believe. It's just the other stuff you believe that I don't agree with.

Prior to my death, there is an extreme difference between blowing my brains out right now and living a long, happy life. To illustrate the concept, compare a long life filled with physical pleasure to a long life filled with wracking pain. I would not call them equivalent, would you?

In your formulation of life, I see no difference. When you are dead, the pleasure or pain you felt in life is gone, as though it never was.

It's rather silly to say that, after my death, the results are equivalent from my point of view, as I will no longer have a point of view. My point of view exists only while I am alive, so I would never live my life as if I believed that it didn't matter when or how it ended.

Nevertheless, your life will end. Then what?

On the one hand, you would have me believe that, despite making thousands of decisions routinely every day as I go about the process of living, I am really an automaton, and all the evidence of my senses that my conscious mind is in control of my activities and thoughts is just not believable.

Of course I don't believe that. I only argue that that would be the case in the event that life is what YOU say it is.

Either you believe that existence was created by a concious entity or it wasn't. There is no way to test for that. We might all be brains in vats, being experimented on by a mad scientist. You have no way of knowing. The universe and existence and identity came from somewhere. You'll never know where. Do you believe it came from nowhere? If so, and you are correct, then you're an automaton. If not, then what? That is the starting point of my faith. I find it harder to believe one thing than the other. As do you, we just chose (or didn't) opposites.

On the other hand, you would have me believe (with apologies to the memory of Robert Heinlein) that the Lord God in Heaven, the creator and ruler of the Universe, requires the saccharin adoration of his minions, can be swayed by their supplications, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery, despite the utter lack of any evidence to support it, and despite the utter lack of credibility the notion has.

I claim no such thing. In fact, I claim that this notion is idiotic to anyone who has actually read the new testament.

The HUP implies little. It describes, mathamatically, what is happening and why. Part of the HUP is that we _can_ know something that is happening, but not everything. Most high-school level chemistry and physics classes touch on the HUP, when they talk about electron valences, and how we can never know both the location and energy of an electron, with precision... Specifically, we can know EITHER the location, or the motion, of an electron, but not both together. That's a far cry from "Nobody actually knows what's happening."

If you'd done the homework, you'd have found the answer to this on your own, and it might actually hold some value for you.

Your whole diatribe about empty space is more of that homework I expect you to do on your own.

But to help you out, and to use your own bad analogy:
Your turkey sandwich that is somewhere around? You know it's been around because you observe my content smile from a full stomach. You know it was around, and had existence, was _real_, because your saliva glands are in full production due to the wonderful aroma the sandwich left behind in it's fleeting existence between the plate and my stomach.

And Ben- I'm still waiting for the answer to my question... How's does a mostly provable science get dismissed as conjecture, but a completely improvable figment of someones imagination get any credit?

And DJ, I had planned to (and may still) use that Heinlein quote. Damn you!

Nope. Can't do it. Ain't no such thing as "Hell".

I didn't mean to anticipate your applecart (and I love mixed cliches). So hurry up (but not too fast) and get it done. I'm salivating already, as it were.

To me, that quote is an exquisite synopsis of the silliness of the daily rituals of religious dogma. Lessee now: One must "worship" the Lord God in Heaven every Sunday (or is it every Saturday, or Friday? I forget ...), one must also worship the Lord God in Heaven before every meal (or is it after? I forget ...), at bed time, and be sure to bow your head (or is it bob your head, or pound it on the floor? I forget ...), and be sure to fold and hold your hands just right (or is it wave them in the air, or wave them up and down? I forget ...), or any time you want the Lord God in Heaven to suspend the laws of physics on your behalf, or any time anything good happens, or any time anything bad happens, especially when the Lord God in Heaven sends yet another tornado to wipe out yet another thousand houses, at which time one must praise the goodness and mercy of ...

Oh, bog. As Mr. Spock might say, this does not compute. I am not afflicted with this neurosis.

Ben:

"And did you not exercise free will by making that choice?"

Certainly, and so did you, I believe. It's just the other stuff you believe that I don't agree with.

So, now you believe that what appears to be free will really is free will?

In your formulation of life, I see no difference. When you are dead, the pleasure or pain you felt in life is gone, as though it never was.

That's just plain silly, Ben. I look at it this way: In my formulation of life I see an extreme difference. When I am dead, I will no longer exist. Once I die, the past does not change. The pleasure or pain that I experienced, I still experienced. You would not live your life as if that pleasure or pain didn't matter, nor would I, therefore it matters.

Nevertheless, your life will end. Then what?

Then I will no longer exist. That's reality. I deal with reality as it is, not as I, or you, might wish it were. I try very hard not to engage in self-delusion.

Of course I don't believe that. I only argue that that would be the case in the event that life is what YOU say it is.

So, if "God" exists, then I have free will, but if "God" doesn't exist, then I don't have free will?

I claim no such thing. In fact, I claim that this notion is idiotic to anyone who has actually read the new testament.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I have read the New Testament, and I think this statement is a remarkably accurate assessment of the silliness of the ritual worship activities commonly practiced by professed Christians. Your claim is demonstrably false, but that is not my point. It has been my observation that a belief in the existence of "God" simply blinds the believer to the silliness of the rituals associated with that belief. Therein lies the humor, the subtlety, and the exquisiteness of Heinlein's statement.

But what good would that do me to tell you them? Is my opinion suddenly more astute because I'm a physicist? Is my understanding still in question with a degree under my belt? Is my intellect better, for some reason, because I have a piece of paper that says I survived 9 years of undergrad, grad, and post-doc, and got out of an institution? What if that instituion were an asylum, or marriage, instead? Would my understanding them be less? What if I were a Bud swilling redneck from Johr-Jah? Or a hillbilly from Arkansas.

There's a reason I don't use the fallacy of appealing to authority, whether it's a piece of paper bought at great expense, or a job that's paid for that paper, over many years of sweat and tears.

And it's _never_ riduculous to discuss someone's work with anyone. It's always educational, whether you teach, or learn.

It's a shame you won't be responding. It's not surprising, as it's a frequent tactic for someone who's gotten in over thier head, is unwilling to give up thier misbegotten faith, and incapable of admitting, even to themselves, that thier belief and knowledge may be wrong.

It's also an overwhelming accademic response to challenge.

Go figure.

Now, THIS attitude stinks. But hey, at least I don't have to worry about you responding.

But just in case...

You've misunderstood what borrowing energy means in context, and you've completely missed the definition of a zero-energy universe. Finally, you're confused on the whole pair/particle creation process. Pairs don't need to borrow energy. They're called pairs because you get equal, and opposite, energy particles. Matter and Anti-matter. They're, as pairs, energy neutral, net zero energy. That's why they don't violate any laws. They exist breifly because they recombine and annihilate, as you noted. However, this doesn't change the balance of energy, as that would violate conservation. But if they are separated, say by an "explosive force" not unlike a big bang, they would then fail to recombine, and gratis, we have particle creation from nothing. That this causes an imbalance of energy, is gratis. That we know and have shown this imbalance, and the need for "dark matter" is something you've already admitted to should have clued you in on some of your questions.

Kauffmann's singularity comes from the particles. The particles are "positive" energy, matter, which is attracted to the "negative" energy of gravity, the singularity. The creation of the singularity is the anti-pole reaction of the creation of matter. Which again brings us back to zero energy. Due note, in your own field, that current measurements concur with the zero energy theory.

Hmmm... Well, I can see how you could hang up on time and HUP. However, Uncertainty is not necessarily hung up on time, but instead can opperate on time and space, to couple or, since time flow isn't an issue in QM, decouple them. This doesn't require a superspacetime.

Note, I've not even gone into the unproved theories yet, such as multiple universes, which would imply a superspacetime, bubble universes, loop universe, big crunch cyclical theories... All of which are natural process, without necessitating a superbeing of any sort.

Regardless of the above, I have to question your paradox. How can you accept anything that is supernatural, but dismiss out of hand a superspacetime?

So, now you believe that what appears to be free will really is free will?

Arrrrgh! I always believed that we all have free will. What I said was that IF the universe is just space, time, and the bunch of laws just as we know them, then there is no free will. The best way to prove me wrong would be to create your own being who had free will, using nothing more than a computer and code. I claim it cannot be done. If you were correct, then this should be achievable.

I have read the New Testament, and I think this statement is a remarkably accurate assessment of the silliness of the ritual worship activities commonly practiced by professed Christians. Your claim is demonstrably false, but that is not my point. It has been my observation that a belief in the existence of "God" simply blinds the believer to the silliness of the rituals associated with that belief. Therein lies the humor, the subtlety, and the exquisiteness of Heinlein's statement.

Yes, ritual worship activities commonly practiced by professed Christians are commonly goofy. The New Testament rebukes these folks in advance. Odd that the irony is lost on them, you, and Heinlein.

Your claim is demonstrably false

No it is not, because we are not talking about the same thing. Common practices by professed Christians are not by necessity the same thing as Christianity.

Once I die, the past does not change.

Neither does it exist, at least not by your formulation. I suppose you might keep all your pleasure in pain in a bank, but good luck trying to make a withdrawl.

One final comment. It takes a lot to get my ire up, but you have accomplished it. You substitute the knowledge of other people for your own by copying-and-pasting an argument here, and then question my credentials twice -- but when I suggest (not demand) that by the same token perhaps your credentials should be questioned, you take umbrage. Do you not see the hypocrisy here? I have never taken the position that one has to be an expert to take part in a discussion. I was happy to debate the ideas as peers, but for reasons unknown to me, you chose to attack my credentials instead of sticking to the subject matter. You are a hypocrite.

Secondly, I am now 100% convinced that your background in and understanding of physics, and science in general, is very weak. I spent quite a bit of time yesterday formulating my response to your copy/paste argument, including a visit with a highly-regarded world expert in cosmological physics, whose office is across the hall from mine. I confirmed my argument with him, and he especially approved of the term "borrowing energy" for virtual pair production.

You are a poseur. Stop making a fool of yourself, and really learn about this stuff.

You guys are all just a bunch of jerks. I'm surprised you even finished the first grade. You probably live on a diet of bacon grease and puppies, and I'm sure your parents are all very very dissapointed in you, as is society, and God, whom I'm sure will smite you any moment now. You guys make me angry, and (with all respect to Berkeley Breathed) I'm so angry that I could strangle a manatee in the nude.

No, Sarah, at Rand. He started off downright insulting, and while he's backed off from that (a very little bit), he's simply gone to a position of "I'm an expert (at cutting and pasting), and you're obviously an ignorant priest-ridden moron."

I find that not only unpersuasive, but irritating (as do you.) And it's my site.

More to the point, a comment forum is unsuited to an esoteric discussion on quantum physics and cosmology. For one thing, you can't even use proper mathematical notation!

So fear not! I was not threatening you with a ban. I thought you were defending yourself ably. I just think that said defense has gone on long enough.

Phew!! But I was still wrong to call names, and so the apology stands.

I agree the conversation was getting waaayyyy off topic, and I was sorely tempted to start inserting LaTeX formatting. :) I really need to start a blog that's dedicated to this whole science/religion debate. Hmmm!

Yes, ritual worship activities commonly practiced by professed Christians are commonly goofy. The New Testament rebukes these folks in advance. Odd that the irony is lost on them, you, and Heinlein.

I don't think the irony is lost, I think it's priceless.

I once attended a wedding between two very devout, practicing Catholics. That was the only time I have ever been in a Catholic church. The back of the pew in front of me had a pocket, in which I found numerous books. I read through one during the ceremony (weddings are frightfully boring to me).

What an eye-opener. The book didn't just recite scripture, discuss it, or the like, as I had seen many times before. It recited, in careful, gruesome, annotated, color-coded detail, EXACTLY, PRECISELY the script that was to be followed by everyone during specified rituals. I've seen less detailed instructions for cleaning a toilet.

Goofy? Goofy doesn't begin to describe it. No, Heinlein was dead on.

Once I die, the past does not change.

Neither does it exist, at least not by your formulation. I suppose you might keep all your pleasure in pain in a bank, but good luck trying to make a withdrawl.

Nope. You're being silly again.

When I die, I will cease to exist. The universe will continue to exist. The past won't change. Time will march onward into the future. And so it goes ...

Your claim is demonstrably false

No it is not, because we are not talking about the same thing. Common practices by professed Christians are not by necessity the same thing as Christianity.

Ben, read your claim again, and don't blink:

In fact, I claim that this notion is idiotic to anyone who has actually read the new testament.

As I stated, I have actually read the New Testament, and I don't find it idiotic. Therefore, your claim is demonstrably false. I just demonstrated it to be false.

Yeah, it's a minor point. I don't argue it for the sake of argument. But, if you're gonna read and comment on this stuff, you need to read a mite more carefully.

You are claiming that the past is a thing that exists? Now this is a strange notion. The past may exist as an idea the same way space aliens exist that way. Heck, even God could exist for you that way. But as a concrete thing that exists, like for instance a rock that you could hold in your hand, it does not exist.

And when you are dead, NOTHING exists for you, not even your past. When you are dead will you feel bad about the pain you suffered in the past? Will you feel good about the turkey dinners and Magnum PI episodes? You won't feel anything. You won't be. What's the difference to you, after you are dead, about anything that happened in your life? Well, since once you are dead you are no longer anything, you have no identity, you have no feelings, you are essentially nothing, so there is no difference to you once you are dead.

I don't understand how we can disagree on this point. Apparently you cannot either. I think maybe we should send each other a cream pie and upon receiving the other, we should pie ourselves in the face and call it a day :)

Christianity is the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles. It is not the ritual ceremony, pomp and circumstance of idiots like the Catholics.

Yup, you are correct. I have not stated or implied otherwise.

I have not described "rituals in the New Testament" as being goofy. I have commented on the "silliness of the ritual worship activities commonly practiced by professed Christians".

What's the difference to you, after you are dead, about anything that happened in your life? Well, since once you are dead you are no longer anything, you have no identity, you have no feelings, you are essentially nothing, so there is no difference to you once you are dead.

I have excerpted only this part of your statement because it focuses on the difference between our viewpoints. I have bolded the key element to focus your attention even further.

Now think carefully. Once I am dead is a remarkably different context than while I am alive, ain't it? The former is some time in the future, the latter is now. If you don't understand that difference, then you need not read any further.

While I am alive, every aspect of my existence does matter to me (some more than others, of course).

Once I am dead, nothing will matter to me, because I won't exist any more.

Do you see the careful use of the verb tenses there? Do you understand the difference between does matter and will matter?

The notion that I should not care at all what happens to me while I am alive because I will someday be dead and will no longer exist is the strangest notion I have ever heard. A close corollary is the notion that what happens to me while I am alive has meaning and significance only because of what my state of existence will be after I die. And yet, if I understand your writings, the latter notion is a very significant belief of yours.

Why, Ben? Can you simply not tolerate the notion that one day you will no longer exist? Is that what you meant when you wrote, "It was not enough"? Do you really believe that you will have some form of existence after you die, despite the utter lack of evidence to support it?

You tell me, Ben. I'm not trying to put words in your keyboard. But I submit that such a notion is self-delusion on a grand scale.

Perhaps that's the difference between us. I will not believe something simply because it makes me feel better if there is no evidence to support it, especially when the notion itself is utterly absurd, and to me, that describes the notion of "the afterlife" perfectly.

I have stated before that I am just a self-aware mechanism. I am conscious and I am aware that I am self-aware. But, I don't have the slightest idea how the mechanism becomes self-aware or why it is self-aware. The key to my viewpoint is that I don't see why that self-awareness should continue once the mechanism ceases functioning.

That is utterly rational to me. My self-awareness did not exist before the mechanism of my body existed. My self-awareness grew, in fits and starts, as my body grew. My self-awareness continues as my body continues to function. Why would my self-awareness continue when my body stops functioning? There is no reason whatever for me to believe that it will except wishful thinking. Nope, can't do it.

Sarah- No need to apologize, as no insult was taken. While I won't pretend it's fun being told I'm a fool and hypocrite, it simply shows that either I am one, in which case the sooner I know the truth the faster I can correct it, I'm failing to make my points appropriately, in which case I need to change tactics at minimum or make sure I understand the subject as I think I do, or I'm failing to communicate properly, which I've found is more often that I prefer. Communication was one reason I chose to heavily use quotes.

And beleive it or not, it was not my intention to get your ire up. Though to be honest, if getting your ire up gets someone, anyone, to really think, I won't shy to use it tactically.

Since Kevin seems to object to a discuss of QM here, I'll try and abide by that and drop it. Since you seem to have tired of the conversation, and I can understand if it did get your ire up, I'll offer that my email address is attached to my comments, and taking the discussion out of band is perfectly acceptable to me.

Kevin-
Well, I'm not sure if the threat of being banned is an insult, or a compliment. To have fun with quoting at my and your expense:
"Jeez, Kevin... calling you an asshole would be a huge understatement, wouldn't it?"
-Jack Cluth, The People's Republic of Seabrook

That's not to say I would like to be banned, as I prefer my name attached to my comments, good and bad. But you should also be aware that banning someone on the internet is one of the most idle gestures one can make to get a point across. A new email address and name are a point and click away.

The tone of most of your posts here has been - in Sarah's opinion as well as mine (and mine is the one that matters) - supercilious and insulting. Sarah responded in kind. I tend to do the same. The discussion between you two has declined into: "Is SO!" "Is NOT!" and it's not productive.

This is also, as I said, a poor forum for discussing quantum mechanics and cosmology. If Sarah wants to grant you posting privileges over at Carnaby Fudge so you two can duke it out in a public forum, or if you wish to continue the discussion privately through email, feel free, but as of right now, this specific discussion between you HERE is CLOSED.

True, if I ban you, you can simply log in from a different computer, but Haloscan bans either the specific IP address or a span of them. All of your comments have originated from 64.236.240.XXX. I don't know how much hassle it would be for you to log on from a different IP, but I'd at least feel better.

What I really meant to say was that Catholics are a bunch of heretical bastards! Wait, nope, that's not it. Um, what I really meant to say is that we're all idiots, and Catholics are no exception. We all know who the only exception is, and I'll leave it at that.

OK, guys and gals. I'm telling a joke here that I've been waiting for a long time to tell, the reason being that there's not much point in telling it unless the audience is really likely to appreciate it. It appears that Kevin likes a sense of humor (see THIS is Why Tam is on My Blogroll! from today), so here it is:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Me, too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me, too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me, too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Me, too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me, too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me, too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

Y'all might want to visit http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-03/032406watson.html and scroll down to How I Became a Believer (for a Moment). It appeared only this morning.

Here's the money quote:

People often ask how I first got involved in skepticism. ... But I guess the more complex answer is that I truly became a skeptic the moment immediately after I became a believer. It was a laughably short time to believe in a fraud, but it was enough to show me the overwhelming power of self-delusion.

Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>